Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[Malerin]

I've only got a few minutes before I have to head out, so I'll hold off on responding to the rest of your post until later, Malerin. Then again, I think we might have come to the end of the discussion - if you still think parsimony equals simplicity, I think we've come to a halt.

http://www.google.com/search?q="law...ox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7DKUS


"Notice how the principle has strengthened in these forms which should be more correctly called the law of parsimony, or the rule of simplicity."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

"The generalization states that, if there are a number of explanations for observed phenomena, the simplest explanation is preferred. Called also scientific parsimony."
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/law+of+parsimony

"This principle says that, of competing explanations, choose the simplest explanation, because the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one. In particular, if the same thing (whatever it is) can be equally well explained either by (a) appealing to one thing (or one type of thing), or (b) appealing to two things (or two types of things), then always choose (a)."

http://home.wlu.edu/~mahonj/Ancient_Philosophers/Lecture1.htm

"Noun: law of parsimony
The principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred"

http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/LAWOFPARSIMONY

"There is a widespread philosophical presumption that simplicity is a theoretical virtue. This presumption that simpler theories are preferable appears in many guises. Often it remains implicit; sometimes it is invoked as a primitive, self-evident proposition; other times it is elevated to the status of a ‘Principle’ and labeled as such (for example, the ‘Principle of Parsimony’)."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/


I think it's beholden on you to explain why we should abandon the standard definition of the law of parsimony (as defined by standard dictionary, encyclopedia, medical dictionary, philosophically, and even mathematically) in favor of your definition which you have not supported with any outside sources.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It's an epistemic point. If we're agnostic about reality, then that agnosticism will bleed into other areas. I'm not saying we should be radical skeptics, but a blind adherence to materialism is close mindedness.

I don't want to get in the middle of your discussion, but this point must be addressed. The value of philosophy is in its rigor. Radical doubt takes doubt to its logical conclusion. We value Einstein because he did not stop half-way, but carried his ideas to their conclusions, even though his thinking produced very strange ideas.

What you are proposing is a way to open up fuzzy thinking. First of all, who is "blindly adherent to materialism" here? I have had similar discussions over the past several years, and invariably someone starts talking about "true believers" or "blind adherence" or "closed mindedness" or some such moniker, and it always struck me as silly. I see people who argue vigorously for a position, but I also see these same people with very open minds, willing to look from a variety of viewpoints.

It isn't "blind adherence" to anything that you are witnessing, but rigor in the approach. Too many folks come by trying to open a space for their latest idea (or, often, it is a very old idea) and claim that their interlocutors are "closed minded" when they meet resistance.

It is a childish ploy. I had hoped better from you.

And I would again say materialism is an increidbly complicated story that no one in the world completely understands. Can you imagine how many years it would take just to earn advanced degrees in all the medical fields? And that's just one subset of materialism.

And if we're limiting assumptions, why should we assume that reality is what it appears to be? Why should we assume that the inferences we've made about the existence of physical matter are correct?

What difference does it make how complicated or uncomplicated "materialism" is? It simply is what it is.

Why should we assume that reality is as it appears? Well, when it comes to ultimate reality we don't. When it comes to approaching the "rules of the game" we have no other option. The way the world works is the way the world works. All we can do is examine it. Whether or not it is ultimately all in the mind of God, vibrating strings of energy, information, your own solipsistic imaginings, that doesn't matter when it comes to explanations in the here an now.

The world appears to work by a set of rules. What we call materialism concerns our attempts to examine what those rules are and how they work, plain and simple. To suggest that ultimate reality being the product of the mind of God should, therefore, bleed into what we see so that anything is possible destroys the entire project of science. Why bother with anything then? Let's all just navel gaze every moment. Science is an attempt to model what we see and hope that it reflects the underlying reality. It actually doesn't matter if it gets it right or not in an ultimate sense, only that it works. If the model we construct works, then that's what we go with. Trying to introduce a fudge factor into the model itself -- psi is likely, ghosts are likely, whatever -- removes rigor from the model. The only wiggle room is between the model and reality, not within the model itself. The model is used to predict future and explain past outcomes, not fit ultimate reality. The deciding factor for what goes into the model is experience -- reality with a little 'r' -- not what we want.

When it comes to parsimonious explanations, Zeus hurling thunderbolts is not an explanation, it is a gloss and description of an event. "Oooh, lightening, Zeus threw another thunderbolt".

Parsimony concerns explanations, not descriptions. The ontology that houses Zeus is (a) much more complicated than monism, or (b) permits "magic". In general such descriptions always introduce magic into the mix; so they are not less complicated explanations. Such descriptions do not provide a mechanism, they bypass the problem with hand waving (they are god of the gaps arguments).

I honestly cannot believe that you would introduce this very old type of discussion which has been dealt with in the philosophy of science ad nauseum as a real issue. I thought you said that you had a degree in philosophy? Or is this a silly game?

When it comes to a dualistic viewpoint, where is the evidence? If you want to introduce dualism into the picture, then that means magic is real -- there is no explanation for how certain things occur, no mechanism -- so provide the evidence. I hope you see that you are introducing god of the gaps into the picture. You are arguing against a rigorous approach and for sloppy thinking -- unless you have something amazing to tell us, some well described event or series of events that have no possible physical explanation.

If you want to get to the real issue, then please explain to me how dualism works. I have asked this question repeatedly for years but heard no answers. Perhaps you can supply one? Or is it just magical thinking?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Materialists and skeptics often ime make these kinds of points but I find them of limited philosophical or scientific value. Natural selection means that a coalition of processes that has formed into an organism over billenia is inherently driven to resist death. This makes no meaningful statement that I can see about the nature of reality.

That sensory phenomenology appears to be "outside" and thoughts and feelings "inside" could well be another function of natural selection. It does not necessarily mean anything in particular.

Nick

I didn't set the terms of the debate. Malerin did. It is far easier to discuss the matter using our dualistic language, as long as the point gets across for that debate, than to move into the whole arena of monism's conclusions. That often just confuses all concerned.

But your point is well taken -- the internal/external division is an artificial hold-over from earlier dualistic ways of thinking, still enshrined in our common language.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

http://www.google.com/search?q="law...ox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7DKUS


"Notice how the principle has strengthened in these forms which should be more correctly called the law of parsimony, or the rule of simplicity."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

"The generalization states that, if there are a number of explanations for observed phenomena, the simplest explanation is preferred. Called also scientific parsimony."
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/law+of+parsimony

"This principle says that, of competing explanations, choose the simplest explanation, because the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one. In particular, if the same thing (whatever it is) can be equally well explained either by (a) appealing to one thing (or one type of thing), or (b) appealing to two things (or two types of things), then always choose (a)."

http://home.wlu.edu/~mahonj/Ancient_Philosophers/Lecture1.htm

"Noun: law of parsimony
The principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred"

http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/LAWOFPARSIMONY

"There is a widespread philosophical presumption that simplicity is a theoretical virtue. This presumption that simpler theories are preferable appears in many guises. Often it remains implicit; sometimes it is invoked as a primitive, self-evident proposition; other times it is elevated to the status of a ‘Principle’ and labeled as such (for example, the ‘Principle of Parsimony’)."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/


I think it's beholden on you to explain why we should abandon the standard definition of the law of parsimony (as defined by standard dictionary, encyclopedia, medical dictionary, philosophically, and even mathematically) in favor of your definition which you have not supported with any outside sources.

His definition is the same as those offered above. You would see that if you took a step back and asked yourself this question, "What do they mean by explanation?" I think what Athon has offered is a much better and pithier way of looking at the issue. It really is a comparison between assumptions and observations. Thanks, Athon. By the way, I'm sorry to step into this since you were the one addressed and you are much better at explaining this stuff than I am.

 

[Malerin]

I don't want to get in the middle of your discussion, but this point must be addressed. The value of philosophy is in its rigor. Radical doubt takes doubt to its logical conclusion. We value Einstein because he did not stop half-way, but carried his ideas to their conclusions, even though his thinking produced very strange ideas.

Which is what I've been arguing for- questioning basic assumptions.

What you are proposing is a way to open up fuzzy thinking. First of all, who is "blindly adherent to materialism" here?

Huh? Did I single anyone out? I was talking about a general principle: we shouldn't blindly adhere to any philosophy. If I said, "we shouldn't use racial epitheths" would you assume I'm talking about certain people here? Maybe a little less "rightoues" indignation next time?

I have had similar discussions over the past several years, and invariably someone starts talking about "true believers" or "blind adherence" or "closed mindedness" or some such moniker, and it always struck me as silly. I see people who argue vigorously for a position, but I also see these same people with very open minds, willing to look from a variety of viewpoints.

And I see people who tell me to stand in the street or hit myself if I don't believe in materialism. Theists tell me I'm going to Hell for questioning the Bible. There's "blind adherence" on both sides, and there are open-minded people on both sides. This whole point that you felt compelled to bring up is...pointless.

It isn't "blind adherence" to anything that you are witnessing, but rigor in the approach. Too many folks come by trying to open a space for their latest idea (or, often, it is a very old idea) and claim that their interlocutors are "closed minded" when they meet resistance.

Step off the soapbox and realize I was making a general point.

It is a childish ploy. I had hoped better from you.

I don't really care what hopes you'd had for me and whether they're dashed or not.

What difference does it make how complicated or uncomplicated "materialism" is? It simply is what it is.

That could be said about any theory of reality. Athon seems to be making a point that materialism is the simpler theory (or doesn't multiply entities or whatever he means by his private definition of "parsimony"), and should be preferred right out of the starting gate.

Why should we assume that reality is as it appears? Well, when it comes to ultimate reality we don't.

Athon is arguing we should, or at least, that's what I think he's arguing.

When it comes to approaching the "rules of the game" we have no other option. The way the world works is the way the world works. All we can do is examine it. Whether or not it is ultimately all in the mind of God, vibrating strings of energy, information, your own solipsistic imaginings, that doesn't matter when it comes to explanations in the here an now.

I agree- the fact that we behave pramatically doesn't have any bearing on ultimate reality other than it seems to be coherent and follow certain rules.

The world appears to work by a set of rules. What we call materialism concerns our attempts to examine what those rules are and how they work, plain and simple.

Materialism goes much further than that:

"The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter, and is considered a form of physicalism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

"Physicalism is sometimes known as materialism. Historically, materialists held that everything was matter -- where matter was conceived as "an inert, senseless substance, in which extension, figure, and motion do actually subsist""
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

To suggest that ultimate reality being the product of the mind of God should, therefore, bleed into what we see so that anything is possible destroys the entire project of science. Why bother with anything then?

I'm not arguing for radical skepticism- just agnosticism about fundamental reality. Just because reality may be idealistic or theistic doesn't mean we should abandon science. Why would you think that?

When it comes to parsimonious explanations, Zeus hurling thunderbolts is not an explanation, it is a gloss and description of an event. "Oooh, lightening, Zeus threw another thunderbolt".

That is an explanation. It's not a good one, but it's coherent and explains the event: Lightning is caused by an irate God throwing glowing objects from the clouds.

Parsimony concerns explanations, not descriptions.

Of course it does. Did I not reference many sources defining it as preference to the simpler theory?

The ontology that houses Zeus is (a) much more complicated than monism, or (b) permits "magic". In general such descriptions always introduce magic into the mix; so they are not less complicated explanations. Such descriptions do not provide a mechanism, they bypass the problem with hand waving (they are god of the gaps arguments).

I don't know what your hang-up is with "magic" (which you seem to define as unanswered questions, which science is full of). Why should we assume everything about reality is explainable? If God exists, I fully expect there to be many things I'll never comprehend about God.

I honestly cannot believe that you would introduce this very old type of discussion which has been dealt with in the philosophy of science ad nauseum as a real issue. I thought you said that you had a degree in philosophy? Or is this a silly game?

This is metaphsyics. You'll notice no one's throwing around Bayes Theorem here. This isn't a philo of science discussion- it's a discussion about what our epistemic position should be relative to competing theories of reality. The claim that some models of reality have components that may never be explained or understood is not evidence that those models are any less possible. You may not want reality to be a certain way, and you seem to be confusing unpalatable with unlikely. I really don't like materialism and it's implications, but I've always said it's a live possibility.

When it comes to a dualistic viewpoint, where is the evidence? If you want to introduce dualism into the picture, then that means magic is real -- there is no explanation for how certain things occur, no mechanism -- so provide the evidence.

I have repeatedly argued that an agnostic does not have to supply evidence if he can show the available evidence fits multiple theories. All the evidence we have is compatibale with innumerable models of reality, including models that may never be fully explained or comprehended by beings like us. Again, you're confusing unknowable with unlikely. You're also ignoring that science is full of unanswered questions. Maybe these questions will be answered in the future, and maybe the material/immaterial interaction will be explained in the future.

I hope you see that you are introducing god of the gaps into the picture. You are arguing against a rigorous approach and for sloppy thinking -- unless you have something amazing to tell us, some well described event or series of events that have no possible physical explanation.

All the events we see have possible physical, idealstic, and theistic explanations. You're asking for evidence for God and I'm NOT arguing for theism. I am saying it is possible, and based on the evidence we have, as possible as atheism.

If you want to get to the real issue, then please explain to me how dualism works.

What caused the Big Bang? What's inside a black hole? How and why does consciousness arise from a mass of neurons? Explain what dark matter and dark energy are. Explain why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

I have asked this question repeatedly for years but heard no answers. Perhaps you can supply one? Or is it just magical thinking?

And I've been wanting to know for years what caused the Big Bang. See, we have something in common after all.

 

[Malerin]

His definition is the same as those offered above.

Really? Including this?:

Yes, I know some explanations use the term 'simpler explanation', but I hate them. They are wrong.

I think I've referenced half a dozen reputable sources that specifically define it as an appeal to the "simpler explanation". It may be fun to have private definitions for words, but it makes for some very confusing discussions.

You would see that if you took a step back and asked yourself this question, "What do they mean by explanation?" I think what Athon has offered is a much better and pithier way of looking at the issue.

Let's throw another one on the pile:

"parsimony - the principle that the simplest explanation, the one that requires the fewest hypotheses, is the one most likely to be correct; same as Occam's Razor: the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred"
http://www8.nos.noaa.gov/coris_glossary/index.aspx?letter=p

The people at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration? Morons, all of them!

If you and Athon think there's a better defintion, by all means, submit it to all these, these... heretics! Webster, Brittanica, Stanford, NOAA, etc. In the meantime, why don't we go with the commonly understood meaning of things instead of making **** up?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

That could be said about any theory of reality. Athon seems to be making a point that materialism is the simpler theory (or doesn't multiply entities or whatever he means by his private definition of "parsimony"), and should be preferred right out of the starting gate.



Athon is arguing we should, or at least, that's what I think he's arguing.

Take a step back, then. He is arguing the same as I am, and it is not the definition that you give below for materialism. He is arguing a monistic position where it is impossible for us to know for sure what ultimate reality is. And monism is the simpler theory. It has fewer assumptions.

I agree- the fact that we behave pramatically doesn't have any bearing on ultimate reality other than it seems to be coherent and follow certain rules.

Good, at least we can get that far.

Materialism goes much further than that:

"The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter, and is considered a form of physicalism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

"Physicalism is sometimes known as materialism. Historically, materialists held that everything was matter -- where matter was conceived as "an inert, senseless substance, in which extension, figure, and motion do actually subsist""
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

Those are old defintions of materialism. Most folks here don't adhere to those definitions but substitute the word "materialism" for monism. We can't know what the ur-substance really *is*, but matter is as good a random label as anything else.

I'm not arguing for radical skepticism- just agnosticism about fundamental reality. Just because reality may be idealistic or theistic doesn't mean we should abandon science. Why would you think that?

Because you said that our agnosticism about ultimate reality should bleed into other beliefs.

That is an explanation. It's not a good one, but it's coherent and explains the event: Lightning is caused by an irate God throwing glowing objects from the clouds.

An explanation provides a basic mechanism. There is no mechanism for Zeus' existence nor how he works in the description. If parsimony means that the description with the fewest components is the best explanation do you honestly think that anyone would cotton to the idea? Really? 'God did it' is the most parsimonius answer for everything, right? So Ockham was really arguing 'God did it' all along? What's the point of the razor? Just say God did it and be done?

I don't know what your hang-up is with "magic" (which you seem to define as unanswered questions, which science is full of). Why should we assume everything about reality is explainable? If God exists, I fully expect there to be many things I'll never comprehend about God.

Then you don't get it. It isn't "unanswered questions" but fundamentally unanwerable questions. Asking what the mechanism for dualistic interactions is is not at all similar to asking what happened at the Big Bang except when we get to the issue of ultimate beginnings where we may not have any answers. But that is not the same as a dualistic viewpoint where anything is potentially possible. What are the limits to what can happen if dualism is true? Why can't you separate your mind from you body at will? Shouldn't you be able to do so if they are fundamentally different?

This is metaphsyics. You'll notice no one's throwing around Bayes Theorem here. This isn't a philo of science discussion- it's a discussion about what our epistemic position should be relative to competing theories of reality. The claim that some models of reality have components that may never be explained or understood is not evidence that those models are any less possible. You may not want reality to be a certain way, and you seem to be confusing unpalatable with unlikely. I really don't like materialism and it's implications, but I've always said it's a live possibility.

But, again, the issue is not that they have never been explained, it is that they fundamentally cannot be explained. That is why I use the word "magic".

I have repeatedly argued that an agnostic does not have to supply evidence if he can show the available evidence fits multiple theories. All the evidence we have is compatibale with innumerable models of reality, including models that may never be fully explained or comprehended by beings like us. Again, you're confusing unknowable with unlikely. You're also ignoring that science is full of unanswered questions. Maybe these questions will be answered in the future, and maybe the material/immaterial interaction will be explained in the future.

As I have told you before, I am not ignoring the unanswered in science. I am pointing out the unanswerable in dualism. It's a big problem.

All the events we see have possible physical, idealstic, and theistic explanations. You're asking for evidence for God and I'm NOT arguing for theism. I am saying it is possible, and based on the evidence we have, as possible as atheism.[/QUTE]


Sure they do. And those other explanations needlessly multiply the components of the explanation. And, no, I'm not asking for evidence of God. I'm again pointing out that there is no explanation when it comes to dualism. Doesn't that bother you?

What caused the Big Bang? What's inside a black hole? How and why does consciousness arise from a mass of neurons? Explain what dark matter and dark energy are. Explain why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.



And I've been wanting to know for years what caused the Big Bang. See, we have something in common after all.

Already dealt with above.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Really? Including this?:

I think I've referenced half a dozen reputable sources that specifically define it as an appeal to the "simpler explanation". It may be fun to have private definitions for words, but it makes for some very confusing discussions.



Let's throw another one on the pile:

"parsimony - the principle that the simplest explanation, the one that requires the fewest hypotheses, is the one most likely to be correct; same as Occam's Razor: the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred"
http://www8.nos.noaa.gov/coris_glossary/index.aspx?letter=p

The people at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration? Morons, all of them!

If you and Athon think there's a better defintion, by all means, submit it to all these, these... heretics! Webster, Brittanica, Stanford, NOAA, etc. In the meantime, why don't we go with the commonly understood meaning of things instead of making **** up?

I'm not entirely sure that he has a problem with the definitions themselves as approximations, only that the definitions can be sorely misinterpreted, as you seem to be doing.

I mean, honestly, do you think parsimony, as used in philosophy and science means 'God did it'?

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Thoughts are creating this discussion. So I'd say that thinking is demonstrably affecting reality here. Thinking creates the sense of there being a self that is having the thoughts but this self is immaterial. One might say that thinking emerges from a neural substrate and so has a material source, but without a mental sense of self being generated by the thoughts there would be no motivation to act upon them imo.

Reread my request. I was asking for a demonstration that thoughts can directly affect reality without any intermediaries. It's not analogous to what idealism claims, because in order for this discussion to be possible, my thoughts required nerves, muscles, and limbs to translate into words on a screen, a computer that works, is plugged in, and hooked up to broadband, and other people possessing the same things. You never would have been able to know my thoughts if I had just thought them.

This ties in to the question of interaction I posed. The exact means by which a mind can interact with reality is an important missing piece of the equation. I've asked creationists the same question, of how a designing mind can influence things in nature, and have never gotten an answer.

I don't quite understand this bit.

Nick

I should have been clearer. If idealism claims that all evidence is equally consistent with alternate models of reality, then there truly ought to be a way of finding direct sense-data of these alternate models. In the Matrix analogy that Malerin is so fond of, Neo was given sense-data that other layers of reality exist. He wasn't just told that because it's possible it must be equally plausible. My point of contention is with the question begging claim that what we perceive could be due to reality operating differently.

I'm asking to be shown. It's the same question of demonstration.

I have repeatedly argued that an agnostic does not have to supply evidence if he can show the available evidence fits multiple theories. All the evidence we have is compatibale with innumerable models of reality, including models that may never be fully explained or comprehended by beings like us. Again, you're confusing unknowable with unlikely. You're also ignoring that science is full of unanswered questions. Maybe these questions will be answered in the future, and maybe the material/immaterial interaction will be explained in the future.

Really? How have you shown that the available evidence fits multiple theories? All you've done is essentially claim that infinite imaginary worlds deserve their fair share of the evidence. This is rather like creationists claiming that intelligent design fits what we observe and deserves a place in academia just because it's an alternate model, even though they can't supply any evidence that would allow ID to stand on its own.

Your entire statement is an argument from ignorance. The fact that something ridiculous that you dream up can't be "disproven" is no reason to accept its possibility (let alone worship it as creationists do). You're basing your arguments on something that you've deliberately defined as non-falsible. I said before that I'd be open to alternate models if you could supply some evidence, yet you shifted the burden of proof. It's not a matter of ruling models of reality out, it's a matter of ruling them in.

 

[Nick227]

Reread my request. I was asking for a demonstration that thoughts can directly affect reality without any intermediaries. It's not analogous to what idealism claims, because in order for this discussion to be possible, my thoughts required nerves, muscles, and limbs to translate into words on a screen, a computer that works, is plugged in, and hooked up to broadband, and other people possessing the same things. You never would have been able to know my thoughts if I had just thought them.

This ties in to the question of interaction I posed. The exact means by which a mind can interact with reality is an important missing piece of the equation. I've asked creationists the same question, of how a designing mind can influence things in nature, and have never gotten an answer.

But if you accept that the thoughts are immaterial and that they are creating reality, then materialism is still in trouble. Just how does a thought cause a nerve to move? This bit I find interesting. Can you explain more? Or are you saying thoughts are an epiphenomenon?

Nick

 

[Malerin]

I'm not entirely sure that he has a problem with the definitions themselves as approximations, only that the definitions can be sorely misinterpreted, as you seem to be doing.

Parsimony, as I've said repeatedly, means, all things being equal, we should prefer the simpler theory. How am I misinterpreting that? I have already referenced multiple reputable sources in support of my interpretation, which isn't even an interpretation- it's the literal definition. YOU are the one arguing against the standard usage of the term. YOU have referenced nothing to support Athon's own personal definition that contradicts a widely understood term. I've shown my proof. The burden is on YOU to show why everyone else is wrong.

I mean, honestly, do you think parsimony, as used in philosophy and science means 'God did it could have done it'?

There, is that clearer? I'm beginnig to wonder if you've read half of what I've posted. I've argued the appeal to parsimony as evidence for a particular reality is fallacious in and of itself. Occam's Razor never should have been brought into the discussion at all.

This isn't going anywhere and I probably should have stopped when it became clear you wouldn't acknowledge the fact that you'd made a claim weeks ago, and then denied making it, despite a quote that clearly shows you saying it. I thought, generously, that you were equivocating on "external". Now, I'm not so sure.

Anyway, good luck with your campaign to convince everyone of the true meaning of "parsimony".

 

[Frozenwolf150]

But if you accept that the thoughts are immaterial and that they are creating reality, then materialism is still in trouble. Just how does a thought cause a nerve to move? This bit I find interesting. Can you explain more? Or are you saying thoughts are an epiphenomenon?

Nick

Well, I don't accept that premise because it begs the question again. We do have some evidence that physical causes can affect or disrupt thought processes. For example, diseases like Alzheimer's can destroy an individual's personality, memories, and sense of self. Conditions like depression or schizophrenia can undermine the certainty one has towards one's own thoughts. Nutrition, drugs, alcohol, and physical trauma can disrupt or otherwise affect thinking. Unfortunately we don't have any evidence that it works the same in reverse. Sick people cannot will themselves into better health. Thoughts cannot affect or change reality without a means by which to act upon reality.

So to answer your question, I do hold that thoughts are an epiphenomenon (if we're using the same definition) at least for the time being. What I'm saying is, I would willingly accept an alternative explanation of reality if shown some evidence of it. Mind you, I'm as biased as everyone else, so even if someone were to pass the MDC and demonstrate psychic phenomena, for example, I'd still search for a quantifiable or measurable cause.

 

[Nick227]

Well, I don't accept that premise because it begs the question again. We do have some evidence that physical causes can affect or disrupt thought processes. For example, diseases like Alzheimer's can destroy an individual's personality, memories, and sense of self. Conditions like depression or schizophrenia can undermine the certainty one has towards one's own thoughts.

I would not for a second dispute that thinking has a neural basis and that physical disruptions here will affect thinking. However, you are not addressing the issue of interactionism. By what mechanism does thinking taking place presumably in my head, become articulated and expressed as sentences?

I don't know the answer by the way, in case you're wondering. I'm just interested in this area so I thought I'd see if you do.

Nutrition, drugs, alcohol, and physical trauma can disrupt or otherwise affect thinking. Unfortunately we don't have any evidence that it works the same in reverse. Sick people cannot will themselves into better health.

If you're not aware of a state change that comes about when you feel good about yourself then I feel sorry for you. It's of course harder to quantify the power of positive thinking when compared with, say, drug actions on the body, but I've no personal doubt it's present. The body feels different when you feel good about yourself or bad about yourself. Feeling loved feels good. Feeling alone usually bad.

Thoughts cannot affect or change reality without a means by which to act upon reality.

Yet they do act upon reality. We've already agreed this, haven't we? We don't know how but it happens.

If you're saying that thinking is an epiphenomenon then doesn't this mean that it can't have any actual processing function? This doesn't sound all that likely to me.

Nick

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I would not for a second dispute that thinking has a neural basis and that physical disruptions here will affect thinking. However, you are not addressing the issue of interactionism. By what mechanism does thinking taking place presumably in my head, become articulated and expressed as sentences?

I don't know the answer by the way, in case you're wondering. I'm just interested in this area so I thought I'd see if you do.

Neurobiology is admittedly not my area of expertise, but I know enough to say that the simple answer would be through chemical and bioelectrical processes, which science has begun to measure and understand. The technology for extracting images directly from the mind (meaning brain) has been around for several years now. There was an interesting thread in the Science section about this and several recent news stories, including this one and a much older story here.

If you're not aware of a state change that comes about when you feel good about yourself then I feel sorry for you. It's of course harder to quantify the power of positive thinking when compared with, say, drug actions on the body, but I've no personal doubt it's present. The body feels different when you feel good about yourself or bad about yourself. Feeling loved feels good. Feeling alone usually bad.

No, I'm not denying that positive thinking can have long term health benefits, and I probably should have clarified to include that, since I did mention it previously. The brain does in fact release a flood of chemicals into the body when you experience strong emotions. If they're good emotions, it can have a positive measurable effect on your health, and if they're bad emotions, it can have a negative effect, again measurable. However that's the point right there. It's a quantifiable and repeatable observation that can be scientifically tested.

The brain is indeed the control center of the body, yet at the same time, it relies on the body's systems in order to survive. It's very much another organ in the body, and modern medicine has learned to treat it as such. However there's a huge leap from this and, say, psychic phenomena, or literally warping reality through thought alone.

Yet they do act upon reality. We've already agreed this, haven't we? We don't know how but it happens.

If you're saying that thinking is an epiphenomenon then doesn't this mean that it can't have any actual processing function? This doesn't sound all that likely to me.

Nick

See above. I didn't deny that thoughts could act upon reality, in a matter of speaking, through physical processes. What I take issue with is the hypothesis that thoughts can create or alter reality without any means to act upon it. To bring back the creationism analogy, in order for the "designing mind" to be consistent with what we define as "creating" something, then it would require a brain, nerves, muscles, limbs, and raw materials as well. This is not the same as thinking thoughts, then a miraculous POOF, then something happens. There's no evidence that anything really happens this way.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Malerin: How are you materialists!
All your evidence are belong to us!
You are on the way to revelation!

JREF: What you say?

Malerin: You have no proof of physical matter, make your time!
Ha ha ha ha!

Change every 'SIG'! For great justice!

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I wanted to take back something I said earlier, though it's more a story nitpick than anything argument related.

It's been a while since I've seen The Matrix Reloaded so my memory's a bit fuzzy on it, but it turns out there were indeed some mind-screwy elements introduced and potential plot twists alluded to in that movie. These included the AIs, the real history and role of "The One," and yes, the possibility that Zion was the true Matrix. However, what this meant in the context of the plot was that the Zion rebellion, The One, and the prophecy around them were all anomalies / eventualities that the machines had planned ahead for, and to a degree depended upon. In other words, Zion was still real, just that the machines had worked it into their equation for upkeep of the Matrix. The original program, the perfect world, was rejected, so the current program was a flawed world that would eventually decay if The One didn't return to the source and reset it every now and then. Failure to fulfill the prophetic cycle and do so would cause the program to collapse, thus killing every human attached to it, while the war in the real world would kill all the humans in Zion. Altogether this would cause the human race to go extinct.

However, the real issue with living in a potential Matrix world is not the ontological quandary it sets up. If the world is an illusion, yet indistinguishable from reality, so what? The question still stands, so what? It makes absolutely no difference, doesn't change the way we ought to treat reality, tells us nothing useful about alternate models of reality, and as I've said before, applying all our evidence to the perceived reality remains the most rational thing to do. The real issue with living in the Matrix is that it is an illusion designed to enforce a form of slavery. The loss of free will is what's really at stake, not the moot implications about the nature of reality. If you find out you've been an unwitting slave all along, everything changes and everything matters.

I need not point out the obvious that this is true for slavery even among beings who exist in the same reality. Regardless of whether the real world is staring you right in the face, there are some who won't come to the realization that they're slaves, because it's the only life they've ever known. It's like Harriet Tubman said:

"I freed thousands of slaves. I could have freed thousands more, if they had known they were slaves."​

This issue, I think, of questioning the beliefs and way of life you've taken for granted all along because of the limitations they impose on freedom, is more important than simply doubting away reality for the sake of being pedantic.

Mind you, this and other plot threads were dropped in the third movie, where instead of taking advantage of them, they just filmed one big DragonballZ fight. Except with less constipated screaming.

 

[rocketdodger]

I guess the short answer would be anything that is objectively real and knowable, right?

Yes.

It can be shown that this is equivalent to the three properties I mentioned, although I prefer not to use it because things like "objective," "real," and "knowable" require definitions and the moronic populace often get those definitions wrong.

And others, who are not morons but just troublemakers (such as nick227) will argue over any delineation between "objective" and "subjective."

So I stick with those three properties I spoke of because I haven't yet found a moron or troublemaker who could bring them down.

 

[athon]

I'm not entirely sure that he has a problem with the definitions themselves as approximations, only that the definitions can be sorely misinterpreted, as you seem to be doing.

Whenever parsimony is explained in one or two sentences, it's typically referred to using the term 'simplicity' out of a need for brevity. I guess in some ways, one can argue that the observation-assumption ratio is something of a simplification - the problem, however, is that it depends on what one means by 'simple'. It's so easily interpreted in a manner that goes against the fundamental concept, as Malerin has done. I'm sure he hasn't done it intentionally, given it is such a common definition, however it's easily seen as insufficient - or plain incorrect - once you start looking into the underlying reasons why the rule of parsimony is used.

I've already explained why parsimony does not equal simplicity. Some people might well argue that what I said was, indeed, 'simpler'. I won't argue, so long as by 'simple' they do ultimately mean 'fewest assumptions with most relevance to the observations'. Yet as I highlighted, I feel this runs into problems. I'd accept it as an argument of semantics, or even have my reasoning attacked. Yet to simply provide a large number of dictionary definitions without demonstrating any understanding of the argument does nothing to persuade anybody, least of all me.

By using outdated or oversimplified definitions, it's easy to put forward a case for idealism; just say an idealist philosophy is 'simpler' than the historical definition of materialism, and it's difficult to argue against it. I'll even agree. Yet you've built a straw man - simpler explanations are not necessarily more scientific or more pragmatic, and I don't subscribe to pre-20th century notions of materialism, nor do I subscribe to notions of materialism that claim to describe a fundamental form of reality. Those strawman arguments can happily burn, in which case. I'll even poor on some additional fuel.

Athon

 

[athon]

Parsimony, as I've said repeatedly, means, all things being equal, we should prefer the simpler theory. How am I misinterpreting that? I have already referenced multiple reputable sources in support of my interpretation, which isn't even an interpretation- it's the literal definition. YOU are the one arguing against the standard usage of the term. YOU have referenced nothing to support Athon's own personal definition that contradicts a widely understood term. I've shown my proof. The burden is on YOU to show why everyone else is wrong.

Yes, yes, we can all cut and paste dictionary definitions. I can't see that you understand the concept any better, although you've done a splendid job using Google. I wouldn't accept this line of reasoning from my students, nor do accept it from you. For full marks, you'll need to explain why these definitions 'contradict' mine.

I'll give this another stab using an example I've stolen from an old lecture I attended years ago, simply because I'm a masochist;

Once upon a time, it was thought that simple life forms could 'spontaneously generate' from non-living material. For instance, rotting meat could produce maggots ex nihilis, while moldy old straw could produce mice...and so on.

The competing theory was that unseen 'seeds' existed in a range of basic substances, which was alive but yet to germinate. Flies eggs, for example, constituted such 'seeds'. This was an assumption, as yet unsupported by observation (until Francesco Redi came along in the 17th century), and the observations which existed to this day were able to support both the vitalistic theories and the mechanistic theories. In all, to assume that life relied on little more than a universal force to manifest is far simpler than to tie together the mass of observations which existed a that time to support the notion that life could develop from invisible origins, espcially given that science had just entered the Newtonian age where ubiquitous laws were being sought for all manner of phenomena. Yet while simpler, the law itself was an assumption which was difficult to demonstrate.

It was therefore more appropriate to test the more 'parsimonous' theory (the most observations with the fewest assumptions) - in this case, it was also the one which was the more complicated, as it relied on a more complicated set of biological relationships.

Now, I've also had it argued to me that in this case, the manner of the assumptions was one of simplicity, and I might even agree that's true. The assumption of a ubiquitous elan vitale is harder to test than the far simpler assumption of invisible life (hence why Redi's experiment was such genius). And, Malerin, if you had have suggested that, I would have probably nodded and agreed that in this case, it is 'simpler' (which, in my experience, is usually what science historians are arguing by the word).

Anyway, good luck with your campaign to convince everyone of the true meaning of "parsimony".

I think the only person not being convinced is yourself, Malerin. I also made the mistake a number of years ago of using the 'simpler' definition in a class, only to have my arse dragged across the coals (in a most friendly manner, of course ). It made for one interesting lesson, and I haven't forgotten the reasoning.

Athon

 

[Nick227]

I didn't deny that thoughts could act upon reality, in a matter of speaking, through physical processes. What I take issue with is the hypothesis that thoughts can create or alter reality without any means to act upon it.

What I'm asking is how are thoughts doing it right here, right now. How are thoughts creating the expression of this sentence? Because if we don't understand this then how can we make an assessment about psychic phenomena (which incidentally I don't believe in.)

Thanks for your other replies.

Nick